matripley wrote:Does anyone think that we have reached a state of skepticism where all unorthodox claims are treated with the same derision as Moon Hoax or Homeopathic claims?

No, of course not.

It isn't the unorthodox claims that attract derision. It's the unfounded claims that lack any evidence; unorthodox or otherwise.

matripley wrote:If so, do you think this is a dangerous state for skepticsm (the engine of truth) to be in?

Nope. Analysis of evidence, or lack thereof is exactly where the discussion should take place.

Agreed.

I don't know of any skeptical commentary that discourages off the wall, outside the box ( god I hate that cliche, why am I not smart enough to avoid it ) claims, or inquiry. Time travel? Hell yea, show the evidence, not film footage of dubiously speculative assumptions. Big Foot? Alien abduction? God? Whatever, if there is any valid evidence, I'm in, and I believe that most skeptics feel the same. I'm not against outlandish claims, I'm against promoting those claims as fact with paltry, if any, evidence to support them. Look at String Theory, I still don't understand it. If you do, go {!#%@} yourself, but I do understand that they can show, mathematically that it works, or more so now, M Theory. These are incredibly outlandish concepts, but there seems to be mathematical evidence. There is no evidence for ghosts that can stand up to peer review, or be duplicated.

One may start with the assumption that skeptics are curmudgeons poised above one's Christmas tree, ready to piss on it. Or if one, so inclined, is skeptical of that assumption and delves further into what Skepticism is, they may find that Skepticism is not a crotchet, but a method of inquiry.